Carlos Jimenez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 119th District Court of Tom Green County

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-96-00123-CR
Carlos Jimenez, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 119TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. CR91-0528-B, HONORABLE JOHN E. SUTTON, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

 

Appellant pleaded guilty to an indictment accusing him of burglary of a habitation. Penal Code, 63d Leg., R.S., ch. 399, sec. 1, 30.02, 1973 Tex. Gen. Laws 883, 926 (Tex. Penal Code Ann. 30.02, since amended). The district court found that the evidence substantiated appellant's guilt and, pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, deferred further proceedings without adjudicating guilt and placed appellant on community supervision. The court later revoked supervision on the State's motion, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment, enhanced by a previous felony conviction, at imprisonment for forty-three years.

Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which he concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

Appellant's notice of appeal does not preserve for review the district court's rulings on appellant's pretrial motions and does not state that the court gave appellant permission to appeal. As a result, we have jurisdiction in this cause only to consider jurisdictional issues. Watson v. State, 924 S.W.2d 711, 714-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Tex. R. App. P. 40(b)(1). Appellant's brief does not question the jurisdiction of the district court over either the subject matter of this cause or appellant personally. Fairfield v. State, 610 S.W.2d 771, 779 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). In light of the frivolous appeal brief, we have examined the record and find no basis for challenging the district court's jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, we do not have jurisdiction of this appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.

 

Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Kidd and B. A. Smith

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: September 11, 1996

Do Not Publish